2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

A. The status of the parties is that the Defendant is the representative of a private entrepreneur F for the purpose of manufacturing toy assembly, early childhood education supplies, etc. and wholesale and retail business, and that he is employed as a inside director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) for manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of published early childhood education supplies, etc.

On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs are those who have resigned from office, and the plaintiffs claim that they concluded a labor contract with the defendant, and are seeking the payment of unpaid wages to the defendant.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that they were not paid wages from the Defendant for January 1, 2016 to February 29, 2016. The Plaintiffs asserted that they were not paid wages from the Defendant, and that they filed a petition for the delayed payment of wages with the High Regional Employment Agency. The labor inspector accepted the petition and filed a written confirmation on the delayed payment of wages from December 14, 2015 to February 19, 2016, and the Plaintiff B did not receive the wages from February 2016 to February 29, 2016, while the labor inspector prepared the written confirmation on the delayed payment of wages from January 12 to February 25, 2016 to June 27, 2016, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 13578, Dec. 21, 2015; Act No. 13788, Feb. 29, 2016; Act No. 14300, Feb. 25, 2016>

C. While the prosecutor’s disposition of non-prosecution is non-prosecution, the Goyang Branch Office of the Central Employment and Labor Agency: (a) investigated the Defendant and H with respect to the above petition, and sent the case in violation of the Labor Standards Act to the Goyang Branch Office of the Government of the District Prosecutors’ Office on July 2017 by stating that “the fact that the Defendant participated in the management of G is not verified;” and (b) the prosecutor, as stated in the opinion on July 7, 2017, stated that the Defendant was retired from the operation of G and then actually operated the said enterprise on or after January 2016; and (c) it is recognized that H was registered as the representative director of the said enterprise and operated the said enterprise; and (d) H was liable for the payment of wages against the Plaintiffs in light of the fact that H was written by paying wages to the petitioner.